Before we go rah rah…

0
134

Before we go all in as cheerleaders for the current round of proposals for the Industrial Park, let’s have a closer look at some aspects not mentioned in the MRC resolution and discussions.
1) We are tending someone else’s garden when we promote development on private property, owned by non-Pontiac residents.

Before we go all in as cheerleaders for the current round of proposals for the Industrial Park, let’s have a closer look at some aspects not mentioned in the MRC resolution and discussions.
1) We are tending someone else’s garden when we promote development on private property, owned by non-Pontiac residents.
If it’s a good place for an industrial location, they can do that themselves. There are
other sites in the Pontiac for light industry sitting idle.
2) Let’s not forget the past pollution of that site, which should be addressed
before new developments are placed on top of possibly contaminated lands.
3) The Environmental Report is slanted in focus on greenhouse gases (GHG) in order to justify clearcutting. Clearcutting is the way to minimize GHG emissions per unit of wood mass delivered, but once you clearcut a forest, that’s it for this lifetime. It may be a monoculture tree plantation or a sod farm, but never again a bio-diverse forest. Most of Pontiac’s woodlands would be better suited to selective cutting, which can be done repeatedly every 20 years, by small-time loggers, which is our forestry labour force. Clearcutting with large machinery means fewer jobs for local people.  
4) There’s mention of generating electricity with biomass by-products. So, the plan is to burn wood to make electricity, in Québec, between two hydroelectric dams, at a profit? Not likely. I suppose it’s a way of dealing with by-products of wood processing. If so, it’s damage control, not ‘free energy’. And it’s certainly not environmentally free. If you burn wood with a choked chimney, you get pollution. You buy something for $18.95, you give a $20, you get back change, that’s all.
Details are too few and too vague to evaluate the long-term efficacy of such a development. The resolution is so vague that we must guess and presuppose. If the development goes ahead without suchquestions raised and answered, there can be dire consequences environmentally, and loss of confidence in the business and political community.

Robert Wills
SHAWVILLE/THORNE